Wednesday, September 21, 2005

From the front, Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Well graduate school is proceeding along very well. The first real showdown in the Social History class occurred yesterday concerning a book called The Wages of Whiteness, which is a Marxist monograph dealing with the ways in which white workers separated themselves from their free black brothers through perceived and real benefits they gained by being defined and thinking of themselves as white. That is the best summary I can give and consider yourself lucky in not having to read all 189 pages to get that summary. There are myriad problems with the book from language subjectivism to psycho-analytical theory being grafted onto the past without any evidentiary support.

I wrote an essay and argued in class for this book being a "good" example of the inefficacy of Marxist history and this particular historian. But the essay could only be five pages long and thus not very explanatory. I have included it below. Upon further reflection on the essay, I wish I had included an explicit condemnation of Marxist history's willingness, like Marxist political theory, to deny reality. But the time for such a reworking is over, since it is already turned in and since I don't wish to return to this topic unless it is in a much larger historiographical critique of the Marxist school as a whole, which is a good idea, though very painful since I would have to read many more Marxist history books.

I enjoyed the debate and am still alive to tell the tale. Will report on more later.

The Limitations of the Marxist Approach to Writing History: David R. Roediger’s The Wages of Whiteness

Ever since Karl Marx wrote about communism as “the end of history,”[1] there have been historians fascinated by his suggestions on how they should be working towards that end. Many have studied and taken up his methods of looking at the past, implicitly accepting (perhaps unwittingly or even unwillingly) the underlying point that, as Keith Windschuttle has put it, “Under Marxism, history would end with the achievement of a universal, communist society that would finally abolish the class distinctions that had themselves driven the historical process.”[2]

An interesting progression in the Marxist historical approach has been forwarded by historian David R. Roediger in his book, The Wages of Whiteness, in which he applies Marxist methods to the study of the concept of “whiteness” among the working classes of American cities in the nineteenth century. Despite an interesting thesis, the weaknesses of his Marxist method ultimately and fatally cripple his argument in a number of ways. The most obvious flaw, which Roediger does not even attempt to hide, is that he explicitly states his motivation for writing the book as being drawn from contemporary political events and a desire to effect some sort of contemporary political change. This is hardly the kind of inspiration one should want to see for an attempt at serious historical scholarship. Another problem with his argument is his recurring attempt to castigate the historical actors he is examining for not living up to Marxist ideals, much the same way Marxists had castigated workers in World War I for being blinded by nationalism, but in Roediger’s case the phantom menace is race. Lastly, the fundamental flaw of Roediger’s efforts is the logical flaws within Marxist historical theory itself, making the entire endeavor an exercise in futility.

Roediger starts The Wages of Whiteness innocuously enough, alluding to his animating impetus as an historian as an effort “to combine commitment, principle, and scholarship.”[3] The full meaning of this phrase becomes clearer when one reads the book, but one need not rely on inference to get at why Roediger wrote it or why he takes the positions he does, because he is quite upfront and honest about it. He says in his afterword to the revised edition that, “Almost all of the much-heralded recent outpouring of historical writing on whiteness in the US has come from activist scholars deeply indebted to Marxism and committed to seeing workers as central to progressive political change. This is true of Saxton, Allen, Ignatiev, Lott, Karen Brodkin, George Lipsitz and myself.”[4] Even more enlightening and, perhaps, more shocking is his subsequent affirmation that he had, “Written in reaction to the appalling extent to which white male workers voted for Reaganism in the 1980s.”[5] Regardless of what one thinks of “Reaganism,” it is highly problematic that an historian would write a book partly out of his negative reaction to how he thinks people should have acted towards contemporary political figures. This is no surprise by the end of the book however, for his argument is interspersed with the exact same negative reactions to how workers in the nineteenth century actually acted. The reason for this disappointment has two probable causes, the first being the most obvious, that workers in the nineteenth century acted in a shameful manner in issues concerning race. The second cause for his negative reaction is his disenchantment with the inability of the workers, white and black, to unite in a common front against the “dictatorial powers”[6] of capitalists.

The theme, which is common throughout the work, that conceptions of race, particularly “whiteness,” prevented labor unity is itself common to Marxists, though often in regard to a wider gamut of dividing lines among workers like nationality, religion, etc. This disappointment in his subjects, the white workers of nineteenth century America, leads Roediger to conclude rather anti-climactically that the whole concept of “whiteness” is “a bad idea.”[7] This familiar frustration of Marxists harkens back famously to World War I, when workers of different nations did not unite as Marx and Engels suggested they do in The Communist Manifesto, but instead went to war with each other under the banners of their respective homelands. Roediger brings up an earlier American Marxist, W.E.B. Du Bois, in order to illustrate this point further,

"Du Bois argued that white supremacy undermined not just working class unity but the very vision of many white workers. He connected racism among whites with a disdain for hard work itself, a seeking of satisfaction off the job and a desire to evade rather than confront exploitation. Du Bois held that this would have been a better and more class-conscious nation and world had the heritage of slavery and racism not led the working class to prize whiteness."[8]

Roediger then finishes up the point by stating that he plans to present this failure of the working class in a way “more tragic than angry.”[9] [Italics mine] The question arises; why is this dichotomy presented? Why should the failure of workers to do something together against any perceived wrongs be viewed first and foremost by the historian as a tragedy or something to be upset about (as if the historian can correct any perceived historical wrongs at all, let alone by writing “angry” history)? The answer is quite simple in Roediger’s case; his Marxism requires disappointment and lamentation over this missed opportunity for proletarian unity. Examples of this dismay crop up throughout, for instance he concludes one chapter by saying, “Only with Black emancipation could a more straightforward critique of wage slavery, and a fierce battle over the meaning of free labor; develop. By that time, the importance of a sense of whiteness to the white US worker was a long-established fact, not only politically but culturally as well.”[10] This conclusion assumes many things that Roediger never establishes, such as the existence, not to mention a coherent definition, of “wage slavery.” The fact that workers in the nineteenth century and in the 1980s did not react to events and figures the way Roediger thinks they should have acted according to his own appraisal of their interests is irrelevant to anything he is writing about as an historian. The fact that he keeps bringing it up only serves to demonstrate the weakness of the Marxist approach in its fixation on how things should have happened as opposed to how they did happen.

Finally, there are the underlying assumptions of Marxist historical theory and their logical incongruence which makes Roediger’s efforts nearly fated for failure. David Hackett Fischer, in his book Historians’ Fallacies, captures something of the essence of where Roediger goes wrong when he writes,

"The pragmatic fallacy selects useful facts—immediately and directly useful facts—in the service of a social cause. Most historians hope their work is, or will be, useful to somebody, somewhere, someday. … But the pragmatic fallacy short-circuits the problem. It consists in the attempt to combine scholarly monographs and social manifestoes in a single operation. The result is double trouble: distorted monographs and dull manifestoes."[11]

It is not just Roediger’s desire to blend social manifesto and monograph together that is problematic. A logical problem of enormous magnitude exists in the whole Marxist theory of history, namely that it all operates mechanistically, passing through set stages, finally terminating in universal communism where the passage of time no longer makes any difference. Fischer classifies the fallacy of Marxist history as the “reductive fallacy” which “reduces complexity to simplicity, or diversity to uniformity, in causal explanations.”[12] He then goes on to eloquently sum up that even Marxists who recognize the existence of this fallacy, as Frankfurt school Marxists do and as Roediger does, will find that “their explicit rejection of reduction is contradicted by the implicitly reductive nature of their interpretations.”[13] This emphasis on reduction leads back to the first problem discussed about Roediger’s work, the fact that the motivation for writing it was derived from contemporary political events seen as “appalling” by Roediger. Marxist history is ultimately more concerned with “commitment” and “principle” than with anything else, which is what one should expect from a historical methodology born out of a political philosophy.

David R. Roediger’s book, The Wages of Whiteness, is illustrative of certain flaws with his own Marxist approach, but also, more broadly, with Marxist historical theory in general. Roediger’s inspiration for writing the book was born more out of his concern with political developments in his own day than with anything specifically going on in the past. His Marxism, in a dash of irony, almost mechanistically required him to feel sorry for his subjects and reflect sadly on the missed opportunities that may have existed or could have existed for all workers to unite against their capitalist “masters.” Ultimately, there is not much that one can expect from Roediger given the underlying flaws in Marxist historical theory which consist mainly in its illogical rigidity and its primarily political, as opposed to scholarly and historical, motives. All of these problems combine in Roediger’s work to demonstrate the limitations of Marxist historical theory in addressing not just Roediger’s concern about the conception white workers had of “whiteness,” but any conceivable topic in all of human history.

[1] The Portable Karl Marx, ed. Eugene Kamenka, The German Ideology, Volume One (New York: Penguin Books, 1983), 189.
[2] Keith Windschuttle, The Killing of History (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 1996), 174.
[3] David R. Roediger, The Wages of Whiteness (New York: Verso, 1999), vii.
[4] Ibid, 188.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid, 69.
[7] Ibid, 186.
[8] Ibid, 13.
[9] Ibid. The concept of this story being a “tragedy” reappears, on page 55, when Roediger refers to the dilemma of those trying to coming up with alternative names for their jobs, i.e. servants calling themselves “help,” etc. He also states in the afterword, on page 186, that the book “is cast as a tragedy destructive to Americans across color lines.”
[10] Ibid, 87.
[11] David Hackett Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies (New York: HarperPerennial, 1970), 82.
[12] Ibid, 172.
[13] Ibid, 174.

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Goodbye, Simon

One of the heroes of the twentieth century passed away today at the age of 96. Simon Wiesenthal devoted his life, after incredibly surviving the full gamut of Nazi death camps, to hunting down the killers who escaped the fall of Hitler's outlaw regime. His greatest achievement came in 1960 when his work in finding Adolf Eichmann, chief in charge of the "final solution," led to his capture by Israeli agents. Eichmann was then brought to trial in Israel, convicted, and executed. But Wiesenthal brought hundreds, and even thousands, more Nazi killers to justice over his lifetime. His committment to justice was a heroic response to his personal tragedy at the hands of the Nazis, who killed 89 of his relatives and had starved him to 99 lbs. by the end of the war. Such devotion to justice is always inspiring. Goodbye, Simon.